Post-Grant Patent Review Conference on Patent Reform Berkeley Center for Law and Technology April 16, 2004 Bronwyn H. Hall UC Berkeley and NBER Overview Heterogeneity More patents not necessarily better Problem and reasons for it Evidence? Post-grant review: benefits and costs April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 2 1
The problem brief review Rapid growth in patent applications leading to Large increase in patent office workload Higher grant rates? Increase in patent litigation Consensus that the average standard being applied during the past decade is too low, especially in newer technology areas Long list of legal, economic, policy scholars and practitioners.. April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 3 Possible causes overburdened patent office lack of expertise in the relevant areas lack of prior art databases weakening of the non-obviousness test, partly through court decisions Some of these problems already addressed by USPTO Hiring changes (computer scientists) Second exam for 705 patents Increased prior art availability; better searching methods Etc. April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 4 2
More is not necessarily better Trivial patents confer market power without consumer benefit Slows advance in cumulative technologies increases level of fragmentation of rights Some areas of research avoided by small and new firms (Lerner 1995) More patents => more litigation Investment in innovation and commercialization slowed by uncertainty over patent validity Clogs the process at the USPTO, especially as others increase patenting in response April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 5 Evidence? Compare grant rates at the EPO for applications with US and non-us priority dates Difference in grant rates has risen from 0% to about 16% during the past 20 years Yet US priority patents should be of higher quality (value) Suggests a decline in the standard of US applications Compare grant rates for US priority patent equivalents at EPO and USPTO (OECD study) Difference in grant rates at USPTO versus EPO has grown from 12% to 30% during the past 20 years Suggests a decline in the standard of patentability Source: OECD and Harhoff calculations April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 6 3
Post-grant patent reviews expected benefits Who is most likely to be able to demonstrate obviousness using non-published prior art? Competitors who are familiar with the area Fast feedback to current patent examination Second pair of eyes improves quality; PTO spends more time on valuable patents Revoked patents cannot cause litigation => large welfare gains (Graham et al. 2004) Dampening effect on aggressive patent portfolio strategies April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 7 Post-grant patent reviews expected drawbacks Too costly? additional financial burden for patent holders Too lengthy? delays enforcement of patent rights (but so does litigation) general delay of uncertainty resolution? Is the USPTO capable of running such a process? Not without additional resources Independent inventors and small entities may be disdavantaged in such a process But no evidence that they are more subject to either US reexam or European opposition Process costs less than litigation and should be faster April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 8 4
Backup slides follow Aggregate US patent applications and grants 1965-2003 Further data on grant differences at EPO between US priority and non-us priority April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 9 The problem? 350,000 USPTO Utility Patents 1965-2003 300,000 Number 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 Patent applications Patent grants lagged two years 50,000 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 10 5
80.0 Difference in Grant Probabilities at the EPO for US and non-us Priority Patents All Technologies % granted (non-us - US) 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Year of patent application non-us priority date US priority date April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 11 A look at the European experience Outcomes of EPO examination by technical field Technical Field Electrical Instruments Chemicals Processes Mechanical Construction All Fields Non-US Grant Rate* 69.7% 67.0% 68.4% 68.4% 70.4% 62.9% 68.3% US Grant Rate** 57.8% 60.1% 56.7% 61.7% 61.7% 51.6% 58.4% Application years 1990 and earlier. Grants include grants after appeal. * Grant rate for EPO applications with non-us priority ** Grant rate for EPO applications with US priority Difference 11.9% 6.9% 11.7% 6.7% 8.7% 11.3% 9.9% April 2004 BCLT Conference on Patent Reform 12 6